Allahabad High Court
Managing Director U.P.State ... vs Ramswaroop And Another on 25 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39940-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 255 of 2023
Appellant :- Managing Director U.P.State Constructions And Infrastructure Development Corportion Ltd.Lko And Anr
Respondent :- Ramswaroop And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Naresh Chandra Mehrotra
Counsel for Respondent :- Vinay Misra,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Vinay Misra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No.2.
2. By means of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment dated 27.04.2023 passed by the writ Court in Writ-A No.15680 of 2021 : Ramswaroop vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare and Ors.
3. Facts of the case in brief are that the Lokayukta, U.P. conducted some investigation into a complaint made against the respondent No.1 which resulted in certain recommendations. Copy of the said recommendations are also on record they are dated 29.12.2016. While making its recommendation, the Lokayukta referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered on 17.12.2013 in Special Appeal Defective No.1278 of 2013 : State of U.P. and others vs. Jai Prakash as also the Regulation 351-AA read with Regulation 919-A(3) pertaining to withholding or withdrawing of gratuity. Referring to the same, as it found some of the allegations proved against the respondent No.1, it accordingly recommended for taking action against the respondent No.1 as per relevant rules. In pursuance thereof, departmental proceedings were held by the petitioners against the respondent No.1 which ultimately resulted an order dated 19.02.2021, copy of which is on record. By the said order, a decision was taken for withholding the gratuity payable to the respondent No.1 who in the meantime had retired on 31.10.2015 i.e. in prior to the recommendations of the Lokayukta which were made on 29.12.2016. In any case the recommendations were for taking suitable action as per rules.
4. The learned Single Judge perusing the order dated 19.02.2021 has found that gratuity was payable to the respondent No.1 under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") and under the Act, 1972 such gratuity can be forfeited only under circumstances specified therein which are contained in clause a and b of sub section 6 of Section 4 of the Act, 1972. Learned Single Judge has found that the circumstance mentioned with reference to the recommendation of the Lokayukta is not one which is covered under the said provisions as the services of the respondent No.1 were never terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer, nor the services terminated for his righteous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part nor his services were terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude committed by him in the course of his employment. He has, therefore, arrived at a conclusion that order dated 19.02.2021 is apparently in the teeth of the provisions of Act, 1972.
5. On being confronted Sri Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order had been passed in pursuance to the directions of the Lokayukta, however, we find that Lokayukta does not have any authority to issue such directions and, in fact, he has not issued any such directions, he has simply made recommendations for taking action as per rules. Prior to making such recommendations, he has referred to the Civil Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as "CSR") but this did not mean that the appellants herein should have initiated such proceedings and passed the order dated 19.02.2021 without looking into the fact as to whether the CSR permitting withholding gratuity were at all applicable to the respondent No.1 and the Corporation of which he was an employee. Admittedly, the said provisions are not applicable to the Corporation. The post held by the respondent No.1 from which he has retired itself was non pensionable under the U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 read with relevant extract of CSR which has been referred by the Lokayukta. The Division Bench judgment referred therein was also with respect to the provisions of CSR applicable to government employees which deals with withholding of pension and gratuity but those provisions were not applicable in this case as already stated. Gratuity was payable to the respondent No.1 under the Act, 1972 and not any act or rules applicable to government servants, therefore, in the garb of report/recommendation of the Lokayukta, the concerned authorities i.e. the appellants herein could not have ordered for withholding of gratuity of respondent No.1 vide order dated 19.02.2021.
6. Having illegally withheld the same and deprived the respondent No.1 of an amount of Rs.2,55,652.71/- which was payable to him towards gratuity, the appellants are obviously liable to pay interest thereon. The fault is not of the Lokayukta as is of the appellants herein who have not applied their mind to the facts and legal issue involved. Merely saying that guidance had been sought from the State Government also does not help the appellants. The error is apparent and the writ Court has rightly quashed the order impugned before it. We see no merit in the appeal.
7. The special appeal is dismissed accordingly.
8. The appellant shall pay the due amount under the judgment of the writ Court positively within six weeks.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]
Order Date :- 25.5.2024
Shubhankar
